If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

Phoronix: Wayland License Changing To LGPLv2

Wayland has experienced a surge in development activities from new developers since it was announced Ubuntu will deploy the Wayland Display Server with patches coming in from various developers that address issues from bugs to letting it run on a Linux frame-buffer. Wayland up to this point has been licensed under the MIT / GPLv2 code licenses (depending upon the component), but Kristian Høgsberg has now decided to change the licenses before it's too late and complicated...

Why not at least LGPLv2 or later? It's good for license compatibility, and fends off the patent trolls, while still allowing well-behaved proprietary folks (i.e. those not trying to give you a trojan horse full of patents) to link against you.

Why not at least LGPLv2 or later? It's good for license compatibility, and fends off the patent trolls, while still allowing well-behaved proprietary folks (i.e. those not trying to give you a trojan horse full of patents) to link against you.

LGPLv2 code can be relicensed as GPLv3 or later (it is allowed by LGPLv2).

I'm saddened by this. Debates about licenses aside, this instantly restricts the number of places that Wayland can be used. (L)GPL code doesn't exist in any Xbox, PS3, Wii, DS, etc. games because those platforms are locked down (and yes, I agree that sucks!) and don't allow the applications to uphold the (L)GPL requirements. I forgot what the verdict on (L)GPL on iPhone was, but I believe it was the same.

Worst part is, there are people who would contribute back if they were able to use the code in the first place. But they can't because of arcane license incompatibilities because someone or another had to get a bug up their ass about making damn sure everybody shares always all times forever (even though most of the time that _forced_ sharing comes in the form of horrific patches that nobody wants to pull into the upstream codebase anyway). This is, in fact, the exact problem I already ran into with Cairo on a project I wanted to use it with but can't. We could have definitely done some performance work on it, and I have blanket approval to contribute patches back to any Open Source project we use, but Cairo's legal incompatibility with the Xbox precludes using it in the first place.

I guess this is just annoying me so much because Wayland was MIT and now just changed to the (L)GPL out of paranoia about people not contributing bug fixes to libwayland-client. Sigh.

This is, in fact, the exact problem I already ran into with Cairo on a project I wanted to use it with but can't. We could have definitely done some performance work on it, and I have blanket approval to contribute patches back to any Open Source project we use, but Cairo's legal incompatibility with the Xbox precludes using it in the first place.

I guess this is just annoying me so much because Wayland was MIT and now just changed to the (L)GPL out of paranoia about people not contributing bug fixes to libwayland-client. Sigh.

And I'm saddened by hearing this old nonsense. The 'Oh, I could have done soo much work on this if it weren't for the licence' bullshit. The Wayland devs knows exactly how to licence THEIR code, take it or leave it. And unlike those licence zelots lurking around saying how much they would contribute if the licence was another, the Wayland devs ARE actually doing the work. So let's just leave it to the code AUTHORS to decide what licence they want, whatever it may be and accept that without the petty whining. Beggars can't be choosers.

And last I checked you could link to a lgpl library from proprietary code, so what is the problem?

And last I checked you could link to a lgpl library from proprietary code, so what is the problem?

It's not really a problem with LGPL as such, but rather that it's likely impossible to satisfy both LGPL and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. Compare GPL-incompatible open-source licenses, ignoring that GPL-incompatible open-source licenses aren't frequently used for the purpose of establishing software monopolies.